Letter of claim over historic parking charge

KennyMc157

The two images of this sign from GSV - taken August 19 and Nov 20 were to be part of my evidence of the negilgence of VCS in respect of maintenance of the site - pretty undeniable that it is the exact same damage on both signs. When I took pictures last year, it was striking how bad the signage was - it genuinely had the look of somewhere where the contract for parking supervision had expired years ago and not been taken up by anyone since. I checked it out again in April when I returned to work following a period of WFH and it was exactly the same. A final check last week, in readiness for today shows that they have now replaced all the broken and missing signs. They now have a mix of old and new signs dotted around with different wording - not sure that's going to help them in any future claims as the Judge today was pressing the solicitor on whether all the signs were the same.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3960786,-3.0103459,3a,15.6y,155.21h,92.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLhQ56k8E-JJDxBhTXnTugQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Coupon-mad

So much for the IPC 'auditing every sign'!

Snakes_Belly

KennyMc157 said:

The two images of this sign from GSV - taken August 19 and Nov 20 were to be part of my evidence of the negilgence of VCS in respect of maintenance of the site - pretty undeniable that it is the exact same damage on both signs. When I took pictures last year, it was striking how bad the signage was - it genuinely had the look of somewhere where the contract for parking supervision had expired years ago and not been taken up by anyone since. I checked it out again in April when I returned to work following a period of WFH and it was exactly the same. A final check last week, in readiness for today shows that they have now replaced all the broken and missing signs. They now have a mix of old and new signs dotted around with different wording - not sure that's going to help them in any future claims as the Judge today was pressing the solicitor on whether all the signs were the same.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3960786,-3.0103459,3a,15.6y,155.21h,92.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLhQ56k8E-JJDxBhTXnTugQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That's really poor. The signs are broken and the white lines are faded. It just amazes me how these PPC's can provide such a poor service to their customers and make huge profits. They have got away with this for so long.     

KennyMc157

Coupon-mad said:

So much for the IPC 'auditing every sign'!

The solicitor mentioned the IPC and VCS are a member now, but part of their evidence was an addendum to the contratct between VCS and the landowner, which Stated VCS were to abide by BPA AOS. I was all set to hit them with this and the fact that at the time of the notice BPA AOS absolutely MUST have signs at the entrances to sites. There remain none to this day there and it's difficult to see an exemption applying. Feel a little cheated by my own idiocy in not being able to lay it all out - this as well as the broken and missing signs, and general air of neglect, but obviously the outcome was all that mattered in the end.

Coupon-mad

Yup, winning this battle by the back door is like the way to approach the main battle this year - the level of parking charges in the new statutory Code of Practice. Doesn't matter how we win this argument, but we must.

The decision about the PCN levels and the false enhancement of the £70 'DRA fee' (that feeds the roboclaim vultures and channels cases to court) is being re-taken.

We must go again and somehow we must win the ban on DRA fees or the whole Code is pointless.

IMHO, the Govt may as well bin the entire new code if they get this final decision wrong.  There is NOTHING more important than removing the vulture 'reward fee' from the bulk of cases.

Le_Kirk

They shot themselves in the foot with their own smoking gun - brilliant!